In this short life, love is the most
significant element. It is the most important thing to God.
Christianity in its essence reveals to us Gods love as well
as the thoughts of His heart; a heart which is aflame with love
for mankind. For this reason, Christ came to our earth.

However, we must take note that love has
varying degrees, levels, and phases. The most excellent degree
and the highest level of love is the life of unconditional giving
and sacrifice which we observe in Christianity from Christ
Himself, who gave Himself for our sake. He also called upon us to
give ourselves for the sake of others. The Gospel says:

"By this we know love, because He
laid down His life for us. And we also ought to lay down our
lives for the brethren" (I John 3: 16).

This is the highest degreethe highest
expression of love. The lowest degree of love is
nondiscrimination, justice and equality among people. This is the
simplest fact of love. Its primary principle is to respect the
other person in his capacity as a person, not to persecute or
humiliate him, and not to harm him. If any one of these occurs,
then love is non-existent and the person who commits such
wickedness walks in darkness and does not know God, the only
living God. God, in essence, is love. The Gospel indicates with
finality:

"He who does not love does not
know God, for God is love" (I John 4:8).

When we discussed human rights in chapter
one, we said that Islam and Muhammad do not have even one drop of
love for others. Anyone who denies his faith, whether he is an
old man or a weak woman, is subject to death, even a person such
as Um Marawan, whom Muhammad ordered to re-embrace Islam or be
killed. If the non-Muslim is an atheist, he will be offered two
optionsIslam or death. If he is a Jew or a Christian, he
will be presented with three optionsIslam, death, or paying
the head tax and humiliation We will talk more about the ill
treatment of non-Muslims In the previous pages, we have seen how
women were persecuted, humiliated and inhumanely treated. We will
also discuss the poor treatment of slaves. Frankly, Islam is
devoid of the simplest facet of love.

Non-Muslims in Islamic
Society

Muslim propagandists use an attractive
motto which says that Islam is the religion of justice and
equality. It is the religion of freedom and womens dignity,
they say, but this cannot be proved by mere talk and a loud
voice, especially among Occidentalists who do not know the
reality of Islam. It is also true that even most Arabs dont
know the truth about Islam. However, a case is proved by
presenting facts and empirical evidence.

When we discussed the issue of women and
removed the beautiful (but deceptive) veil of Social Equality, we
revealed the ugly face of Islam. Muslim propagandists claim that
Islam is the religion of equality and justice! Where do you get
that idea? Show us! How could that be if Islam says that
Christians whose lands are invaded by Muslims and conquered by
force are not allowed to build new churches or even to renovate
the destroyed ones? This was what Islam said, and this was the
verdict of Umar Ibn al-Khattab who was known as the Just Caliph,
as he was called by Muslims.

Tell us where equality is if a
non-Muslims testimony is not acceptable or even allowed in
court against Muslims or even against other non-Muslims, as the
most famous Muslim scholars indicate? And of course, non-Muslims
do not have the right to assume leading jobs in the state.

Tell us where the justice and equality is
in Islam when a Muslims life is spared even if he kills a
Christian intentionally while a Muslim may only be required to
die if he assassinates another Muslim. The reason, as Muhammad
said is that "only Muslims blood is regarded
equal." Thus, no Muslim should be killed for murdering a
non-Muslim. If Muhammad saysaccording to all
scholarsthat "only Muslims blood is equal"
(have the same value), we have the right to ask, "Where,
then, is equality?" Muhammad says to us, "I meant the
equality between a Muslim and another Muslim and not between a
Muslim and a non-Muslim."

On the other hand, we will see that if a
non-Muslim merely curses a Muslim, he must either be sentenced to
death or be converted to Islam! However, if a Muslim murders a
non-Muslim, he will only pay a fine.

Abu Al-Ala Al-Mawdudis
View: Discrimination is Necessary!

In his book, "Rights of Non-Muslims in
Islamic States" which has been translated into many
languages, this great scholar asserts that we should distinguish
between the rights of non-Muslims and the rights of Muslims. On
pp. 2-3, Abu Ala al-Mawdudi says:

"An Islamic state ... is by its
very nature bound to distinguish between Muslims and
non-Muslims, and, in an honest and upright manner, not only
publicly declares this state of affairs but also precisely
states what rights will be conferred upon its non-Muslim
citizens and which of them will not be enjoyed by them."

Now let us analyze the rights which
are not supposed to be conferred on non-Muslims We will witness
the worst practices of racial discrimination and religious
segregation.

A Muslim Must Not Be Sentenced
To Death For Murdering A Non Believer

Muhammad himself gives justification for
this. He says only Muslims have blood that is alike; thus a
Muslim should not be put to death for murdering a non-Muslim but
must pay a blood feud to the family of the murdered man. As
expected, the great Muslim legists and scholars such as Ibn
Timiyya, Ibn Hazm, Al-Shafii, Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Al-Jalalan,
Al-Bukhari and Muslim agree on this important point.

Ibn Timiyya

Ibn Timiyya emphasizes forcefully in Volume
14,

"Nothing in the law of Muhammad
states that the blood of the disbeliever is equal to the
blood of the Muslim because faith is necessary for equality.
The people of the Covenant (Jews or Christians) do not
believe in Muhammad and Islam, thus their blood and the
Muslims blood cannot be equal. These are distinctive
texts which indicate that a Muslim is not to be put to death
for (murdering) one of the people of the covenant or an
unbeliever, but a free Muslim must be killed for a free
Muslim, regardless of the race" (Vol. 14, p. 85).

He reiterates the same statement (Vol. 20,
p. 282) that a Muslim must not be killed for one of the people of
the covenant; that is, a Christian or a Jew

The Imam al-Shafii

In section one of "Ahkam
al-Quran" ("The Ordinances of the
Quran", page 275), he says: "A Muslim is not to
be killed for an unbeliever". Then he says (page 284),

"If a believer murders an
unbeliever, he has to pay blood feud to the Jew or Christian
which is one-third of the blood feud of the believer, though
Malik says it must be one half."

"The blood feud should be one half
because this is what was transmitted by tradition about the
prophet Muhammad and as the Sunnis said also."

Whether the blood feud is one third or one
half is not important. What really matters is that a Muslim is
not to be put to death for a non-Muslim. Despite the disagreement
among the Muslim scholars about the actual amount of the blood
feud to be paid, the important thing is that the blood feud of
the unbeliever is less than the blood feud of the believer, and
that a Muslim is not to be put to death for a non-Muslim.

Of course, if a Muslim murders another
Muslim, the murderer must be sentenced to death because he
assassinated another Muslim. According to al-Shafii, in this case
the victims relatives have the option either to accept a
blood feud or to kill the criminal. However, if the murdered is
non-Muslim, his relatives have no choice but to accept the blood
feud ("The Ordinances of the Quran", Sect. I, pp.
180, 279).

Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya

In his book, "Zad-al-Maad" (Sec.
III, p.124), he says:

"Muslim blood is alike (has the
same value). A Muslim is not to be put to death for killing
an unbeliever."

"Sahih" of Al-Bukhari
and" Sahih of Muslim"

These are two authorized books acknowledged
by all Islam scholars pertaining to Muhammads sayings. We
read in Part 9 of al-Bukharis book (p. 16,) "A Muslim
is not to be sentenced to death for an unbeliever." He
stresses that this is also the opinion of Ali Ibn Abi Talib.

In "Sahih of Muslim" interpreted
by Nawawi (Part 4, p. 244), we read,

"A Muslim is not to be sentenced
to death for one of the people of the covenant nor for a free
man or a slave."

The Jalalan

In their famous commentary, in the context
of their interpretation of Sura the Women, the Jalalan clearly
and distinctly states the following (p. 178),

"On the topic of punishment,
whether or not a man embraces the same religion will be
considered. Thus a Muslim is not to be sentenced to death,
even if he is a slave and the victim was a free mannot
a Muslim.

It is obvious from these words that there
is discrimination between a slave and a freeman. What matters to
us is that if a Muslim slave murdered a non-Muslim freeman, he is
not to be sentenced to death because he is a Muslim and the
murdered man is a non-Muslim.

These are the scholars who have quoted the
words of Muhammad himself in this regard: Ibn Timiyya, Shafii,
al-Jalalan, Ibn-Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Sahih of Muslim and Sahih of
al-Bukhari. They are more acquainted with his sayings and |
traditions than anyone else.

Ibn Hazm

In part Twelve of Vol. 8 (page 39), he
asserts and demonstrates by practical and empirical examples the
same opinion we have already observed. He indicates,

"If one of the people of the
covenant murdered another one of the people of the covenant,
and then the murderer was converted to Islam, he would not be
subject to punishment based on the prophet Muhammads
saying, "A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for an
unbeliever." But if the injured was converted to Islam,
and died as a Muslim, the murderer must be sentenced to death
because believers blood is alike. If a Muslim injures a
non-Muslim intentionally, he is not to be punished because
the injured is a non-Muslim, based on the Quranic
verse. But if the injured confessed Islam and then died, the
Muslim must be punished."

It is obvious here that Ibn Hazm relies on
Muhammads sayings and does not present his own personal
opinion. He explains how a murderer can spare himself punishment,
even if he is not a Muslim. He offers him an easy way to escape
by embracing Islam after he murders his non-Muslim friend ! In
other words, Islam tells a murderer frankly, "Confess:
There is no God, but God and Muhammad is the apostle of
God and you spare yourself the sentence of death because
you became a Muslim, and in this case you will only pay a
fine.

Places Of Worship Are Not
Allowed To Be Built Or To Be Renovated Or To Be Rebuilt If They
Are Destroyed

Can the reader believe this unjust verdict?
This is practiced in countries which were originally
Christian such as Syria and Egypt. These countries had been
invaded and occupied by Muslims and tom by war. Because of the
attitude of Islam against the Christian places of worship, we
discover obvious persecution and inequality.

Umar Ibn al-Khattab

Muslims claim that Umar was the most just
Caliph. The title, "just", is his famous attribute. He
was the second Caliph and the father of Hafasa, Muhammads
wife. He was also one of the greatest companions of Muhammad who
was responsible for enacting legislation because he received it
directly from Muhammad. Muhammad himself used to say, "Take
as examples those who come after meAbu Bakr and Umar"
(Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28, p. 651 as well as other sources).

Now what did Umar Ibn al-Khattab say? Ibn
Hazm, Ibn Timiyya and all the Chroniclers assert that when Umar
signed the peace treaty with the Christians of Syria, he dictated
some conditions to be carried out by the Muslim governors
throughout the conquered Christian countries. One of these
conditions was that Christians were prohibited from building a
monastery or a church, and from rebuilding those that were
destroyed even the cell of a monk (Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4, part 7,
p.346).

This same words (uttered by Umar) are
quoted also by Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 28, p.652).

"In lands owned by Muslims, the
non-Muslims are not entitled to build new places of
worship."

That refers to the countries which
Muslims possessed by war. Christians are not permitted to build
new churches in them. It happened that a ruined church was
actually renovated, but what was the punishment? Ahmad Ibn
Timiyya, the Sheikh of Islam and the Mufti of Muslims in his
time, was asked about this matter (Vol. 28, p. 648).

"Question: A Christian
priest lives in a house next to a site on which there is a
ruined church without a roof. The priest bought the site and
renovated it and made the church part of the building in
which he gathered people (to pray). Is he allowed to do so?

"Answer: He does not have the
right to do so even if there were the ruins of an old church
because Muslims had conquered these places by force and possessed
the churches, and it is permissible for them to destroy them
according to Muslim scholars. Therefore, all those who helped him
must be punished, and the Christian priests blood must be
shed and his properties must be confiscated according to some
legists because he violated the terms imposed on them by Muslims.
"

Ibn Timiyyas words are very clear. He
says that it is not permissible to renovate a ruined church.
Notice also Ibn Timiyyas statement that all the scholars
agree on the permissibility of Muslims destroying churches in
countries which they conquer by war. Pertaining to the death
sentence inflicted upon anyone who builds a church, this verdict
is voiced by Umar Ibn al-Khattab after he imposed his terms on
the Christians. Umar told them,

"Anyone who violates such terms
will be unprotected. And it will be permissible for the
Muslims to treat them as rebels or dissenters namely, it is
permissible to kill them" (Ibn Timiyya Vol. 28:652).

"Muslims have the right to
confiscate places of worship in such towns as have been taken
by storm."

Another Important question reveals strange
historical and eccentric events which took place in Cairo, Egypt.
In the same volume of Ibn Timiyya (Vol. 28, p. 632), we find the
answer to the following question

"Question: If Christians
claim that the churches which had been closed by the rulers
were unjustly closed and they have the right to re-open them,
and if they made their request to the rulers, should the
rulers approve their case? Re-opening those churches may
incur a change in the hearts of Muslims in all the earth
because Christians will rejoice and will be pleased to go to
churches. This will cause annoyance to the righteous

Muslims and others so that they invoke God
against whoever allowed that and assisted it.

Answer: Ibn Timiyya, the Mufti of the
Muslims responded to this question at the beginning of page 634.
He said,

"Praise be to God: The allegation
of Christians that Muslims were unjust to them by closing
their churches is contrary to the consensus of Muslims
because Muslim Scholars who belong to the four schools of Abu
Hanifa, Malik Al-Shafii and Ahmaad as well as others of the
Imam, such as Sufyan al-Thawri, al-Uzai, al-Laith Ibn sad and
others, and before them some of the companions (of the
prophet) and their successors, have consented that the Muslim
Imam, even if he destroyed every church in the conquered land
by war (such as Egypt, Iraq, and Syria) that would not be
regarded as injustice done by him, but rather he must be
obeyed in that. If Christians refuse to accept the verdict of
the governor, they would be violating the covenant, and
their blood and their properties become lawful (to the
Muslims).

"It is well known that Umar Ibn
al-Khattab made it a condition that Christians are not to build a
church even in a land that was conquered through a peace treaty.
If they had a church and the Muslims erected a city, the Muslims
have the right to confiscate the church. Even if there were
churches on the lands of Cairo before it was built, the Muslims
would have the right to seize them after the erection of the
city, because the city which is inhabited by Muslims who own
mosques in it should be free of tokens of ungodliness, churches
or anything similar.

"Because of the same principle, the
prophet said: Expel the Jews and Christians from the Arab
peninsula. So no Jews were left in Khaybar. The prophet
(until then) had agreed to keep them there after he invaded
Khaybar and conquered it. Later, he gave his order to expel the
Jews and Christians from all the Arab peninsula. That happened
after the Muslims began to inhabit it. Thus, some rulers such as
Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and Harun al-Rashid and others used to
demolish the Christian churches to support Gods cause. May
(Gods) support and victory be upon them ! "

We have quoted the text of Ibn Timiyya word
for word, as we usually do. Do these words need any comment? The
matter is very clear and the reader can re-read these words.
Sheikh al-Islam here clearly states all the historical facts, and
the consensus of all the scholars, and the companions
(Muhammads friends) who call for the abolishment of the
churches and prohibition of building a new church. Only during a
weakened Islam when the rulers did not apply the Islamic law were
some churches were built, but in case of a strong ruler, such as
Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz and Harun al-Rashid and others, Gods
order was carried out and churches were demolished!

Whenever Christians refused to obey the
order, their blood and properties became lawful to Muslims. What
an insult and injustice! Yet in spite of that they talk
boastfully about justice and equality! Even during the time of
the Caliph Umar Ibn al-Khattab, the Muslims confiscated the
largest church in Damascus and converted it into a mosque which
is now called the "Amawi Mosque" (Ibn Kathir, Part 7,
p. 21).

The Inadmissibility of the
Testimony of the People of the Covenant

This simply means that a non-Muslim
(whether they are Jews or Christians) is not allowed to give his
testimony in any matter in a court. Basically, their testimony is
not acceptable because they are not Muslims. Is it possible that
an entire society does not accept the testimony of its citizens
because they are not Muslims? How then, can court cases be justly
conducted, and where is equality?

My dear reader, this is Islamic law which
does not comprehend the meaning of equality. Equality in Islam is
delusion and deception. Islam is nothing but the religion of
inequality.

The Sayings of Muslim Scholars
and Legists

All Muslim scholars agree on this matter. I
have chosen to show you the greatest and the most famous from
among them, such as al-Bukhari, al-Shafi'i, Ibn Hazm, Ibn Timiyya
and Malik Ibn Ons.

Malik Ibn Ons

In Vol. 5, Section 13, p. 156, we read the
following plain statement,

"Non-Muslims testimony is
not permissible at all, even against each other! Of course,
their testimony is not allowable against Muslims but Muslim
testimony against them is acceptable."

Concerning non-Muslim women he says also,

"The testimony of the women of the
people of the covenant is not permissible even in birth! But
the testimony of the women of Muslims is acceptable provided
two women testify. One womans testimony is not
acceptable" (p. 157).

The statement is very clear. Christian or
Jewish testimonies are not acceptable, even against each other.
Their womens testimony is not acceptable even in matters of
birth!

The Imam Al-Shafi'i

In his famous book, "The Ordinances of
the Quran" ("Ahkam Al-Quran", Part 2,
p.142), Al-Shafi'i says,

"The testimony of the people of
the covenant is not permissible . The witness must be one who
belongs to our religion and he must be a freeman not a slave.
Testimony is acceptable only from our freeman who belongs to
our religion."

This is an unquestionable
statementThe witness must be a Muslim, a freeman not a
slave.

The Bukhari

In Part 3, p.237 of the Sahih, the Bukhari
indicates,

"Polytheists are not to be asked
for a testimony or anything else. The testimony of the people
of other religions against each other is not allowable, based
on the Quranic saying: We caused enmity among
them, and because the prophet Muhammad said: Do
not believe the people of the Book."

That is, a Christian cannot testify against
another Christian, according to al-Bukhari, one of the most
famous scholars of Islam. He quotes a verse from the Quran
which says that God has caused enmity to prevail among
Christians, thus their testimony is not acceptable against each
otheras if there is no hostility, homicide, war and
destruction among Muslims! Then the Bukhari cites Muhammads
saying: "Do not believe the people of the book." The
non-Muslims testimony is not acceptable.

Ibn Hazm

In Vol. 6, Part 9, pp. 405-408, Ibn Hazm
remarks,

"The testimony of a Christian or a
Jew is not permissible unless a Muslim man dies in a foreign
land void of Muslims! Apart from this, the testimony of a Jew
or a Christian is not acceptable against another Muslim or
even against a Jew or a Christian like him."

In order to authenticate his statement Ibn
Hazm quotes the most famous among the companions of Muhammad,
such as Ibn Abbas and Abu Musa, as well as some of
Muhammads wives.

Ibn Timiyya

In Vol. 14, p. 87, Ibn Timiyya indicates
plainly and decisively: "The testimony of the people of the
covenant is not admissible."

I believe the texts quoted from the works
of these prestigious Muslim authorities are sufficient to clarify
this point. Otherwise, tell us, my dear Muslim friend, who are
more famous than al-Bukhari, Malik, Ibn Timiyya? If you want to
know the opinion of the Imam Abu Hanifa, he also declared that
the testimony of a non-Muslim is not allowed against a Muslim. He
agrees with all other scholars in this matter, but he adds
that the testimony of a non-Muslim against another non-Muslim
like him may be admissible because all of them are ungodly men.
The rest of the scholars (without exception) disagree with him in
this matter.

The Prohibition Against
Employing non-Muslims

There exists a prohibition against
employing non-Muslims in certain jobs, such as management
positions. All scholars and legists of Islamic law agree on this
view.

"Khalid Ibn Al-Walid wrote to Umar
Ibn Al-Khattab saying: In Syria there is a Christian
secretary who is in full charge of accounting the
taxes. Umar wrote to him: Do not use him.
Khalid answered: He is indispensable and if we do not
put him in charge of it, the treasury will be lost.
Umar responded again: Do not use him."

It was quoted in Sahih Al-Bukhari
that Muhammad said,

"I will not ask the
assistance of a polytheist.

"One day, Abu Musa Al-Ashari came to
Umar while he was in the mosque to lay before him the income of
Iraq. Umar was pleased with the outcome and said: Summon
your secretary to read it for me. Abu Musa told him:
He would not enter the mosque because he is a
Christian. Umar attempted to scourge Abu Musa with a whip.
Had it touched him, it would have hurt him and Umar said:
Do not honor them after God has humiliated them. Do not
believe them after God has disbelieved them" (Ibn
Timiyya, Vol. 28).

Based on Ibn Timiyyas volumes, it is
well known that Umar Ibn al-Khattab used to command the Muslims
and their governors saying, "Humiliate the Christians."
This is the second Caliph who succeeded Abu Bakr. He refused to
let Khalid appoint a Christian to take care of the taxes in spite
of Khalids evaluation that no one knew better than he. When
he also discovered that Abu Musa had employed a Christian to
oversee the accounts of Iraq, he scourged him with a whip. Then
Ibn Timiyya adds in the same volume (p. 646),

"Some who were less qualified than
the Christians were appointed; that would be more useful to
Muslims for their religion and earthly welfare. A little of
what is lawful will be abundantly blessed, and abundance of
what is unlawful will be wasted."

Ibn Timiyya meant here that regardless of
how little the qualification of a Muslim, God will bless it
because employing a Muslim is lawful; and no matter how great the
qualification of a Christian, employing him is an unlawful matter
which God has forbidden.

Of course, it is not allowed that any
Christian be appointed to a position of leadership All scholars
agree on that. Ibn Hazm says, "No one but a mature, sane
Muslim should assume the office of judge" (Vol. 6, part 9,
p.363). Umar Ibn al-Khattab said; "No one of them should
hold a position in which he can have power over a Muslim."

Contemporary ScholarsThe
Azhar Scholars of Egypt

It is sufficient to quote the Azhar
Scholars of Egypt and the Mawdudi of Pakistan. Dr. Abdul Moumin
says,

"All Muslims Jurists agree that a
judge should be a Muslim and it is forbidden for a non-Muslim
to be a judge according to the Quranic verse,
There is no authority of the infidels over the
Muslims. Judgment is considered authority and judgment
requires that the judge be a mature and wise Muslim. In
addition, a non-Muslim should be humiliated as an infidel,
whereas the position of judge requires respect, and he is
ineligible even to be a witness."

This article is from the "Journal of
the Administration of Governmental Judicial

Cases" (1979 July-September)
concerning the general rules prohibiting non-Muslims from being
judges in court according to Quranic verses and Islamic
teachings. This article was written by Dr. Badr El Deen Abdel
Moumin, teacher at the international university of Al-Azhar. The
Journal is published by the Egyptian Government. This Islamic law
is not applied now in Egypt, but it is an Islamic law
according to the Quran and Muhammads teaching.

The Mawdudi

In his previous book, "Rights of Non
Muslims in Islamic State", the Mawdudi says, "They
cannot become members of the Council and they do not have the
right to participate in electing members to these positions"
(Arabic version, p.31).

Also, in his book, "Islam and
Encountering the Challenges", the Mawdudi also says,

"Non-Muslim sects must not be made
equal to Muslims in political rights; even the right of
election is prohibited for non- Muslims" (p. 268).

On the same page, the Mawdudi asserts that
non-Muslims do not have the right to propagate their religion in
Muslim lands.

It is apparent to everyone, therefore, that
the position of a judge is prohibited for a non-Muslim or a woman
because Muhammad said plainly,

What a significant saying of Muhammad! This
is a tradition upon which scholars rely. It is even known to the
ordinary man. This is why some Kuwaiti and Saudi newspapers
warned the people of Pakistan against electing Mrs. Buto to be
Prime Minister of Pakistan. Pakistani officials said that there
is nothing in their constitution which prohibits it.

"The Jew and the Christian and the
Magian are to be judged by the laws of the people of Islam in
everything, whether they like it or not, whether they come to
us or not. It is unlawful to refer them to the law of their
faith. There is a verse in the Quran which says to
Muhammad, If they come to you, pass arbitrary judgment
among them or turn away from them. Another verse was
inspired which abrogated this verse. It says, Pass your
judgment on them according to what God revealed to you.
This is what Ibn Abbas has said."

"The Islamic state was carrying
out the laws of Islam in the Countries which were subject to
its authority. It used to implement the ordinances, and apply
the punishments as well as the business deals and to
administer the peoples matters according to Islamic
principles. Scholars of the foundation of jurisprudence
believed that the one who was addressed by legal ordinances
must comprehend the message, whether he is a Muslim or
non-Muslimall who embrace Islam and those who do not
yield to its ordinances."

The important thing here is that Muslims
attacked Christian lands and occupied them, then they imposed
Islamic law on Christian inhabitants! !

The Remainder of Umars
Terms

We have already mentioned that Umar Ibn
Al-Khattab made it mandatory that Christians not build a new
church or renovate any of the ruined churches. Now let us
complete the study of the restrictions which Umar imposed on
Christians as they are recorded in the same reference (Ibn
Timiyya, Vol. 28, and Ibn Hazm, Vol. 4). Umar says,

"Christians should not hinder any
Muslim from staying in their churches for three days during
which they offer them food and serve the Muslims. They ought
to give them their seats if the Muslims wish to sit down.
Christians should not resemble Muslims in anything, such as
their dress, tiaras, turbans or shoes or parting of the hair.
They should not ride a donkey with a saddle. They must shave
their foreheads. They should not display any of their
(religious) books on the streets of the Muslims. They should
not bury their dead next to Muslims and must not read loudly
in their churches. They should not mourn loudly over their
dead. They should not buy slaves who fall under the portion
of Muslims Not one of them should assume any position by
which he has any authority over a Muslim. If they infringe
any of these terms, they lose the right of protection and it
is admissible for the Muslims to treat them as people of
rebellion and quarrel; that is, it is permissible to kill
them. Head tax must be imposed on them, free men as well as
the slaves, male or female, poor and rich and on the
monks" (cited from Ibn Hazm).

Ibn Timiyya asserts that these are the
conditions which Umar Ibn al-Khattab actually made. He completely
agrees with Ibn Hazm because this is the history of Islam. When
Umar made a peace treaty with the Christians of Syria, he offered
them these terms in a clear document. Sufyan al-Thawri who is one
of the ancient Muslim scholars and chroniclers acknowledged by
all Muslims, attests to this. Ibn Timiyya adds in the same volume
(page 654):

"These terms are constantly
renewed and imposed on the Christians by any one of the
Muslim rulers who, God may be exalted, has bestowed on him
success, as Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz did during his reign, who
strictly followed the path of Umar Ibn al-Khattab. Harun
Al-Rashid, Jafar al-Mutawakkil and others renewed them and
ordered the demolishing of the churches which ought to be
demolished, like the churches of the entire Egyptian
lands."

Ibn Timiyya recorded the above after he
praised the rulers who carried out these terms which Umar Ibn
al-Khattab, father of Hafasa, wife of Muhammad and the second
Caliph who succeeded Aby Bakr a imposed on Christians. Ibn
Timiyya declares to us (Vol. 28, p.654):

"These terms are mentioned by the
chief scholars who belong to the acknowledged schools. They
alluded to the fact that the Imam ought to oblige the people
of the book to subjugate them to these terms [because
Muhammad said many times, Follow Abu Bakr and
Omar!]."

Ibn Timiyya also indicated that Umar Ibn
al-Khattab said about the people of the covenant, "Humiliate
them," because the Quran said distinctly that they
should pay the head tax with humiliation (9:29).

1. These unjust humiliating terms imposed
on Christians are acknowledged not only by Ibn Timiyya and Ibn
Hazm but also by the chief scholars (who belong to the four
schools which are followed by the majority of the Muslims) among
them Sufyan al-Thawri, who is one of the great companions and
chroniclers. These terms were not only carried out during the era
of Umar Ibn al-Khattab but were implemented by many Arab Muslim
rulers during their occupation of the lands of Christian people.

2. After Umar Ibn Al-Khattab presented
these terms to the inhabitants of Syria and Damascus, he told
them plainly:

"If any Christian violates any of
these terms, it will be permissible to kill him."

Imagine the extent of the relentlessness
and injustice of this verdict. This means that if a Christian
dressed like a Muslim, it would be permissible to kill him. If he
refused to host the Muslims in the church for three days, or if
he did not move from his seat to let the Muslim sit in his place,
he could be killed. Also, if Christians pray loudly in the
churches or mourn loudly over their dead, or if one of them
renovated a ruined church he would be killed. What a just man,
Umar Ibn Khattab! As all Muslims say about him, "The Just
Caliph!"

A Christian Is Condemned To Death If He
Curses A Muslim

Who can believe this matter? No one, unless
he reads it clearly in Ibn Hazms book (Vol. 8, part 11, p.
274). He said:

"It is mandatory to kill
anyone of the people of the Covenant who curses a
Muslim, whether he is a Jew or a Christian because God says,
Pay the tribute readily, being brought low
[humiliated]" (9:29).

"That is humiliation. If anyone
violates this principle by cursing a Muslim, he must be killed or
taken into captivity. His properties become lawful for Muslims
nor does it matter whether the person who did it was a man or a
woman. If any one of them cursed a Muslim, he would have no
choice but either to embrace Islam or be killed" (p. 274).

Ibn Hazm (page 275) added, "Of
course, if a Muslim curses another Muslim like him, he would only
be whipped."

Ibn Timiyya states that in general, any
Christian who curses a Muslim must be killed immediately
(Vol. 28:668).

It is easy for the reader to imagine all
the situations in which a Christian who is humiliated in his own
land might get angry, react impulsively, and curse a Muslim.
However, if he does, there is nothing left for him but to accept
Islam or to be killed, as Ibn Hazm indicated! What a merciful
religion! A religion of equality and love and
understandingand justice!

Before we conclude this discussion, we
would like to mention briefly three specific things out of dozens
of other issues. What we have already discussed is sufficient for
anyone who is interested in knowing the facts about equality and
justice as they are practiced by Muhammad and Islam. It is enough
to remove this veil, yet there are three more things:

1. If a Christian father executed or
arranged a marriage for his Muslim daughter (even with her
approval) that marriage is not permissible and is void because
the rather is a Christian and she is a Muslim - even if the
daughter approved of it (Malik Ibn Anas, Vol. 2, part 4, p.
176). That is, the father cannot be the legal guardian of his
Muslim daughter even if she herself wants it! A Muslim who is a
stranger to her will become her legal guardian!

2. Muhammad said, "Do not meet Jews or
Christians with greetings. If you ever meet them in the
street, force them to the narrowest part of it"
(refer to Sahih of Muslim, "Interpretation of Nawawi",
Vol. 5, p. 7; also Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya: Zad al-Maad,
Part 2, pp. 424, 425). This is a well-known statement of
Muhammad.

3. Last, we would like to state here a
remark made by one of the contemporary Muslim scholars, Dr. Ahmad
Umar Hashim, in which he reveals the real face of Islam. He
says,

"Islam does not prohibit [Muslims]
from conducting business with non-Muslims, but Islam
prohibits hearty friendships because hearty friendship should
only be between a Muslim and his brother Muslim"
(Al-Liwa al-lslami, issue no. 153 - Al Azhar).

What a sad statement! Yet, this is not
foreign to Islam and, of course, Al Azhar knows exactly what
Islam does and does not prohibit.

You may have a Muslim friend who tells you
that Muhammad said of the people of the Book, "They enjoy
the privileges we enjoy and they are subject to the duties to
which we are subject." What does this statement mean? How
does it agree with what we have already had which reveals clearly
that there is a striking discrimination between the Muslim and
the non-Muslim? Besides, we have seen that the people of the Book
are subject to ill-treatment and contempt.

The answer is very simple. Muhammad spelled
out this statement about the people of the Book provided that
they became Muslims like them. In this case, they would be
treated as Muslims without any discrimination and they would be
subject to the same privileges and duties as other Muslims
because they have become Muslims. If they do not embrace Islam,
they will be subject to the head tax and all the terms which
Umar Ibn al-Khattab mentioned in his document. It is
relevant here, my friend, to know the situation concerning to
which the above statement refers because many Muslims wrongly
believe that it means equality between Muslims and non-Muslims.

They Have the Rights and Duties
We Have

If we open the "Biography of the
Prophet" ("Al-Road Al Anf", Ibn Hisham and
Al-Sohaly, part 4, p. 216), we read that Muhammad sent a letter
to some of the Byzantines who accepted Islam saying,

"From Muhammad, the Apostle of
God: I received what you have sent and I became aware of your
acceptance of Islam and your fight against the infidels. You
have to practice praying, pay the alms and give one-fifth of
the bounty to God and to His apostle. Any one of the Jews or
Christians who accepts Islam will enjoy the same rights we
enjoy and will be subject to the same duties to which we are
subject. But anyone who holds fast to his faith must pay the
head tax."

What is important to us in this quotation
is not Muhammads request that they send him one fifth of
the bounty which was captured during their raids, but rather his
plain statement that anyone who embraces Islam will have the same
rights and will be subject to the same duties imposed on the
Muslims. Those who hold fast to their own religion must pay the
head tax (the tribute). This is what is recorded in Ibn
Hishams biography which has become the most authoritative
source about Muhammads life.

If we examine the "Chronicle of
al-Tabari" (Part 2, pp. 145-196), we see the same principle.
Muhammad himself says,

"Whoever prays our prayer is a
Muslim, and will enjoy the same rights as Muslims and be
subject to the same duties. But those who reject (Islam) must
pay the head tax."

In Part One, we discussed the wars which
Muslims waged in order to spread Islam and indicated that
Amru Ibn al-As, when he invaded Egypt, said to
Maquqas who was the ruler at that time,

"If you accept Islam you
will become our brothers, enjoying the same rights as we do
and subject to the same duties to which we are subject"
("al-Khulafa al-Rashidun" by Dr. Abu Zayd Shalabi,
p. 145).